• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
49,972
At the risk of making light of the situation, seeing Casey so completely undisturbed by Beard's threats had me feeling inspired.

071m0j8o.jpg


072jxj2m.jpg


073zlkmh.jpg
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
49,972
Whats Funi's lawyers doing?
If you're asking about some new details I don't know, if you were asking about my post, I was thinking of these exchanges from the evidence in Beard's motion to compel:

Ty Beard said:
The motion will likely be filed tonight. And we will ask for sanctions against you of course, for flagrant discovery abuse.
Your sudden concern for "safety" is transparently self‐serving and ridiculous. It's now very clear that your clients can't
back up their public claims.

If you were actually concerned about the identity of these purported witnesses, you would have accepted our offer to
redact their names. Obviously, your real concern is that your clients are about to be publicly exposed as liars.

Maybe these discovery games will work out for you, but I doubt it. You really should just comply with the rules. The
purpose of discovery is to allow the parties to investigate claims being made. Your attempt at prior restraint won't work.
‐‐Ty

Casey Erick said:
Ty, we are opposed.

Be advised we will seek sanctions against you, your client, or both, for having to respond.

Ty Beard said:
Dear Casey –

Since January, your clients have defamed Mr. Mignogna mercilessly and constantly. A key point of the public allegations
(and private statements made to businesses) is that there are "hundreds" of women who will purportedly accuse Mr.
Mignogna of sexual assault.

I see no value proposition in your proposal as it allows your clients' public defamation of Mr. Mignogna to stand
unanswered.

I will, however, agree to redact the identity of each witness in any public statements for 30 days. That will give us time to
work this out and see if there is any common ground.

I reserve the right to publicly release information about their specific allegations, the number of such accusers, whether
they are identified with sufficient detail, etc.

Please advise ASAP if this is acceptable as we otherwise intend to file this evening.

Casey Erick said:
Thanks for the information.

We have valid safety concerns about disclosing the names and contact information of the other victims given the
comments made online. And, taking that position is not inconsistent with our objection to Plaintiff's motion for a
confidentiality order.

Since the hearing on that confidentiality order, we have seen numerous comments online that are disturbing, prejudicial
to my clients, and intended to frighten witnesses. You have publicly encouraged your client's supporters to find
personal and private information about witnesses and even other third party attorneys. Given this climate, we think it is
our ethical obligation to protect these women, who want only to speak about their experiences. They should not be
subjected to online abuse, doxing, harassment, and death threats for speaking out.

So, you can see why we are taking measures to protect these witnesses and which is why we now request an agreement
limited to the purpose of protecting these women from online harassment. I will remind you that during the hearing, Jim
admitted that Plaintiff would protect the identities of people who come forward because they have not put themselves
into this case. I suggested that we handle such situations on a case‐by‐case basis, and the judge agreed. So not only is
our proposal consistent with the discussion during the hearing, the change in circumstances I refer to above makes this
matter even more important.

All that said, we will provide the witness information you asked for pursuant to a rule 11 agreement by Friday. All we're
asking for here is the professional courtesy of an agreement that no one will expose these witness's identities and
personal information online. What is your position?

Ty Beard said:
Casey, I assume that you saw my response below and have rejected my request for confirmation. However, I'd like to
call your attention to Local Rule 3.12: "Frivolous objections to discovery requests are subject to sanctions by the trial
court, including, e.g., objections to identification of persons having knowledge of relevant facts and identification of
testifying expert witnesses." It seems to me that your responses will be sanctionable per this rule. I would like to avoid
that, but I am not willing to let you withhold the information that we're entitled to.


Please confirm whether you will provide the information requested in my 3:29 PM email by Friday at 3 pm.
‐‐Ty

As a last effort to resolve this without court involvement, and on the off chance that this is a simple misunderstanding, I
am asking you one more time to confirm that you will provide the information requested in my 3:29 PM email by Friday
at 3 pm.

If you will confirm that, I will not file the motion. The remaining items we can discuss later. If you won't confirm that
you'll provide the information, then you leave me no choice but to file the motion to compel and schedule a hearing.
—Ty

Casey Erick said:
Okay.
At this point, we won't waste anymore time reviewing our answers by Friday and will deal with them via
your motion. Although, I'm guessing the court won't view it as a good faith effort to confer.

In any event, I do not agree to setting a hearing during your client's deposition or my clients'
depositions.

Let me know what dates the court offers so I may see if I'm available.

Thanks.

Ty Beard said:
I intend to file my motion to compel first thing in the morning and I plan to call to set
the hearing right after I file.

Casey Erick said:

Ty Beard said:
If the court can accommodate us, I'll set the hearing
while we're up there for depositions. Is that OK with
you?

Casey Erick said:
Ty, then file your motion to compel
with us opposed. I will respond to your
motion accordingly.

Otherwise, see my prior email about
any supplemental answers. Thanks.
 

Killer Tofu

Member
Feb 18, 2019
48
Has anyone seen Vic's Broly headshot from his latest tweet? It's pretty cringy...

2a4zeir.jpg

Kinda funny considering he hates this role.
 

Stryk3r

Member
May 8, 2019
35
So Vic or an admin hit the master reset button on his fanbase discord server? Emails to Beard say that they haven't submitted their discovery documents and the server has been nuked
 

Cokomon

One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 11, 2017
3,762
Was the Risembool Rangers Discord that got nuked? I said it earlier in the thread, but I bet that place was a treasure trove of incriminating shit.
 

deimosmasque

Ugly, Queer, Gender-Fluid, Drive-In Mutant, yes?
Moderator
Apr 22, 2018
14,164
Tampa, Fl
They didn't Bates label the documents? Like that is legal documents 101. How do you not know to do that.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
49,972
It's the empty folder that gets me. Like, even if they're trying to horribly cherrypick, they could have just not sent the folder.
 

Mr. Zero

Member
Apr 22, 2019
86
Here's a transcript of a hearing on May 31st. Interesting read. Of course it ends with Percy making a fool of himself

 

Stryk3r

Member
May 8, 2019
35
Some absolute fucking GEMS
Judge didn't know Beard was a lawyer
D982bm7X4AAzrYK.jpg


He doesn't even fucking stand to address the judge
D98yu_gWsAAPCmo.jpg
 

Protome

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,677
Some absolute fucking GEMS
Judge didn't know Beard was a lawyer
D982bm7X4AAzrYK.jpg


He doesn't even fucking stand to address the judge
D98yu_gWsAAPCmo.jpg
This isn't even the most embarrassing thing he did. Right at the end he basically said the confidentiality request was bullshit and they were only making it to avoid an Anti-SLAPP before deposing the defendants. Bull had to step in and basically go "No, ignore him. It's because we might talk about contracts."
B46lBKE_d.jpg


0AXdALU_d.jpg


End result seems to be depositions will now happen in the court building and the Judge will rule on any confidentiality issues on a case by case basis. It's a loss for the prosecution as they were basically asking for a vague confidentiality agreement up front but nothing too important especially given Beard mentioned the real reason being to avoid receiving an Anti-SLAPP response after the Defendants depose Vic but before the Prosecution deposed the Defendants. Something which the Judge seems to basically brush off as never actually being something that could happen anyway making this whole thing a bit of a waste of time.

I'm sure someone with actual law experience can clarify whether I've misunderstood something about it though.
 
Last edited:

Arttemis

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
6,196
"you should have learned this in law school"
"Are you a lawyer?"
"You should be standing for this."

What a fucking idiot.
 

deepFlaw

Knights of Favonius World Tour '21
Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,494
Just to be clear, remember that this is from the end of May, not something new. That's why we've seen mentions of some of this before.

Good to have it clearer to read, though.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
Every. Fucking. Day. I come in here and there's more stupid shit from Vic and his goons.

Dying laughing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
34,775
Here's what I don't get.
If by some insane miracle, Vic wins his lawsuit, do his fans think he'll get his job back?
If anything, he'll just be blacklisted by all the major studios. Hell, he's probably already blacklisted.
 

caliph95

Member
Oct 25, 2017
35,154
Here's what I don't get.
If by some insane miracle, Vic wins his lawsuit, do his fans think he'll get his job back?
If anything, he'll just be blacklisted by all the major studios. Hell, he's probably already blacklisted.
He probably would have been fine if he lay low and came back after making an apology and people would have forgotten about it

The lawsuit probably killed his career longer than if he shut up
 

deimosmasque

Ugly, Queer, Gender-Fluid, Drive-In Mutant, yes?
Moderator
Apr 22, 2018
14,164
Tampa, Fl
The thing is for the current ConVics it's not about Vic at all. Well maybe someone of them care, but what this is really about for them is culture war.

It's all about the lying feeeemmmalllless who accused him of sexual assault and the White Knight beta cucks who defend them.

Percy and Screech are just there to get money they figured this was an easy FUNimation will want to settle a lawsuit.
 

deepFlaw

Knights of Favonius World Tour '21
Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,494
Y'all should read some of the latest tweets from Doucette and such. They amended the motion to compel, and there's now more emails at the end that are even more laughable. Beard responding to very professional emails about harassment concerns with all the tact of a Twitter rando.

Not to mention one of the other unrelated lawyers that's commenting on this talking about how all this is just going to invite the defense being able to bring in what Beard's done with Nick and KF and such.

Starting to think the way he acts might actually blow up in his face.
 

Hrodulf

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,300
Nearly spit out my fucking coffee at the "Are you a lawyer?" bit. How has this guy been practicing law for over twenty years? This whole thing just gets dumber and dumber every time I check up on it.
 

Protome

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,677
So basically, Funi and Monica's team believe that Beard and co are trying to basically exhaust them financially with a long, drawn-out legal battle that they have no intention of actually winning, and they just hired lawyers who specialize in shutting down that kind of legal campaign?
More or less. It doesn't even need to be that long or drawn out though, legal fees are expensive so scaring people with nonsense lawsuits like this can make them panic and give up quickly.

Vic's team are also fully aware that what they are doing would be susceptible to an anti-SLAPP case because they literally said as much to the judge.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,270
So basically, Funi and Monica's team believe that Beard and co are trying to basically exhaust them financially with a long, drawn-out legal battle that they have no intention of actually winning, and they just hired lawyers who specialize in shutting down that kind of legal campaign?

Right. And TX has pretty broad anti-SLAPP laws. If Funi gets the case dismissed, then Vic (as the plaintiff) will be ordered to pay Funi's legal costs (up to a point) and pay a punitive amount (in the case of defamation suits, which Vic has brought) so as to discourage the plaintiff from bringing such lawsuits in the future.
 

FormatCompatible

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,071
Jesus, how fucking shitty of a lawyer you have to be to have a judge ask you "are you a lawyer?" and then be asked to stand up like you are a child being disciplined?


Scratch that I'll answer my own question: the kind of shitty lawyer who has to resort to asking people to doxx their opponents because they have nothing to actually defend their clients.
 

Zero315

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,184
Here's what I don't get.
If by some insane miracle, Vic wins his lawsuit, do his fans think he'll get his job back?
If anything, he'll just be blacklisted by all the major studios. Hell, he's probably already blacklisted.
The judge pretty much asked Vic's lawyers this same question.

And a lot of his stans legit think that he'll end up owning Funimation...

Y'all should read some of the latest tweets from Doucette and such. They amended the motion to compel, and there's now more emails at the end that are even more laughable. Beard responding to very professional emails about harassment concerns with all the tact of a Twitter rando.

Not to mention one of the other unrelated lawyers that's commenting on this talking about how all this is just going to invite the defense being able to bring in what Beard's done with Nick and KF and such.

Starting to think the way he acts might actually blow up in his face.
I've been saying for months now that those livestreams would come back to bite Beard in the ass.
 

FormatCompatible

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,071
The judge pretty much asked Vic's lawyers this same question.

And a lot of his stans legit think that he'll end up owning Funimation...
Yep, I have seen a bunch of idiots thinking that if Vic wins this Funimation will be ordered to reinstate his contracts and give him even more roles.

Because that's how any of this works.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
49,972
I believe SLAPPs fall into the territory of frivolous lawsuits; the measures to eliminate them don't necessarily revolve around their strategic use as much as their lack of substance. So I think taking the anti-SLAPP focus works equally if Beard is malicious and if he's just so fucking stupid that someone looks at their lawsuit and says "well, this is dumb".

I do think he's been trying intimidating tactics, it's just that he's really bad at it when he isn't getting someone else to do it for him (see the enclosed definition of feces for further evidence) and so the defense's attorney has appeared to be pretty nonchalant about it. I'm not sure how much he's been sticking to that strategy over an attempt to legitimately win though because I don't think he's got that level of thoughtfulness behind his actions.
 

Uzumaki Goku

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,254
Reminds me of what happened with Ken Penders vs. Archie, he won but it was a prryic victory since he ended up getting blacklisted by other comic publishers.